I’d like to draw NM readers’ attention to whether Kevin Rudd’s vision for an Asia Pacific Community would not be “dead in the water.”

Here is an interesting and well researched analysis on Rudd and the APC with an ASEAN perspective written by Malaysiakini columnist Josh Hong.

————————————————–

Less than three years into the job, Kevin Rudd was forced to step down in a bloodless coup as prime minister of Australia. It was a surprise for sure, but not quite a shock given that his proposed mining tax had made him deeply unpopular.

Perhaps the Australian Labor Party took a leaf from its sister party in Britain. Labour there had dithered over whether to dethrone Gordon Brown to salvage the party’s dwindling fortunes, before deciding to stick with him. Yet, it failed to stop both the party and the leader from being politically routed.

When Rudd (left) won the mandate in a landslide victory in November 2007, there were high hopes in the country and abroad. Australians sighed with relief now that a younger face with fresher ideas was in, while Asian countries in general welcomed a leader in Canberra that was keen to strengthen ties in the region.

China, in particular, was pleased with Rudd’s impeccable Mandarin, although some in the Communist Party were concerned over his past interest in Beijing’s human rights records.

Yes, Rudd’s Honours thesis, submitted in 1980, was entitled Human Rights in China: the Case of Wei Jingsheng. But he completely ignored Wei when the most famous Chinese dissident, often referred to as the Sakharov of China, visited Sydney in September 2007 for an APEC forum. As Rudd’s prospects of assuming power were looking up, it would be imprudent for him to touch on Beijing’s raw nerve.

But it was Rudd’s concept of an Asia-Pacific Community (APC) that caught the attention of Asian leaders. Mooted in early 2008, APC was supposed to be a mechanism to pursue economic cooperation in tandem with explicit efforts to resolve security disputes in the region, spanning the entire Asia-Pacific rim.

Unlike Asean or APEC, which seeks to foster trust and harmony through the creation of a gigantic trade zone, APC was meant specifically to enhance regional security by putting in place a sort of early warning system, with economic ties a major tool to that end.

Community resistance

Little wonder that APC hit a snag immediately. In announcing the proposal, Rudd had several flashpoints in mind: Kashmir, the Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula. It does not take a genius to find out these are all complex issues beyond the reach of a regional framework.

The fight over Kashmir is deeply rooted in the decades-old animosity between two subcontinental powers who are dead against outside interference as it would undermine their sacrosanct adherence to national sovereignty. The same goes for the Taiwan Strait, which China sees as its own internal affair.

As for the Korean Peninsula, the key stakeholders are the two Koreas, Japan, the United States, China and Russia, not a hodgepodge of regional lightweights.

Within Asean, Indonesia has never been favourable to the proposition since APC, if anything, would only weaken the Southeast Asia grouping. At a workshop in Jakarta last weekend, I could see how the Indonesian participants (including Agus Widjojo who is an influential security reform advisor) took pride in their democratic achievements since 1998, but also their strong position that Indonesia must be in the driving seat of Asean.

Two years after APC was announced, Malaysia is yet to make any concrete response to it. While an official view is not available at this time, it is nevertheless clear that the issue is not on the top of Wisma Putra’s agenda.

It does not mean Malaysia does not value Australia. In fact, ever since Mahathir Mohammad stepped down, the bilateral relations have improved by leaps and bounds. But what Malaysia is concerned about is whether or not APC as a framework would actually permit the grouping to intervene in the domestic affairs of a member country.

Again at the Jakarta workshop last weekend, nearly all the participants (made up largely of lawmakers, including five from Malaysia) identified the sacrosanct principle of non-interference as among the biggest obstacles to making Asean a more coherent and effective organization.

If this is the case, what more huddles would APC face especially when the memories of Australia’s alleged involvements in Indonesia’s 1965 coup that resulted in Suharto’s (right) iron-rule and the East Timor invasion in 1975 are still fresh. More importantly, APC is also popularly viewed as a platform for the US to exert greater role in the region in collaboration with Australia.

But it was Singapore’s objection to the APC idea that somewhat surprised the Rudd administration. The island state has long been a staunch ally of the West, but APC, if materialised, could potentially sharpen the tensions and conflicts – currently under control – among the regional powers. Undeterred, Rudd made the effort to revive the concept at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month.

Still, Barry Desker, dean of the Singapore-based S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, had already described APC as ‘dead in the water’. Now that Rudd has been overthrown in Australia’s Night of the Long Knives, the chances of it being followed through by his assassin, a decisive but ruthless Julia Gillard, seem pretty remote indeed.

————————————————————————————-

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.

Australia still doesn’t consider itself part of Asia and still supports the concept of global US hegemony. So APC was nothing new, increase US influence under the banner of global security and Australia as “Americas deputy sheriff in Asia”. It was dead on the same day it was announced.

Diplomats by their very nature tend to be ultra conservatives and Rudd was no exception. Despite Asia’s central role in Australian economics for 40 years they are still just customers, the ever receding US and Europe are still considered family.

I am shocked by the way Kevin Michael Rudd was ousted. It seems to me Rudd was the second victim, Thaksin Shinawatra was the first one.

I think everyone should wake up to the present day reality of hegemonic challenge era. The global financial crisis is the international political economy aspect of it. And now domestic politics is used as an instrument to eliminate those who pursue foreign policy that is not in the interests of the “Hegemonic Challengers.”

China was happy with Rudd’s impeccable Mandarin, the U.S. was pleased with Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community foreign policy. So how it came to this?

Was it the lack of understanding about the politics of hegemonic challenge era? Was it the withering of American Hegemony? Or was it both of them?

I look forward to the emergence of a true heavy-weigh Australian leader in the coming election. Australia is extremely important to Asia and the Pacific.

I hope Kevin Rudd would not be hard on himself. It isn’t him, it’s world politics!

Suzie: There’s a big difference between how Thaksin & Rudd were removed.
Rudd was tolerated as ALP leader when he was a likely election winner, but that was no longer the case after so many stuff ups during his reign – so the knives came out – self interest by ALP MP’s, nothing more than that.
If the electorate don’t like what the ALP have done, they will vote accordingly at the next election.

That situation is vastly different than what happens in Thailand, where the electorate doesn’t really get a say (although sometimes their choice may be ‘tolerated’ for a while)

Rudd was dumped because he was elected on the promise of big changes after the Howard era and failed to deliver. It didn’t help that he pissed off a lot of his colleagues with high handed behavior either.

The only international relevance is the parallels to what Obama is doing in the US.

“That situation is vastly different than what happens in Thailand, where the electorate doesn’t really get a say (although sometimes their choice may be ‘tolerated’ for a while)”

And another difference: even though she was Deputy Leader of the party winning the last election, one of Mrs Gillard’s first statements was “I also certainly acknowledge I have not been elected prime minister by the Australian people. And in the coming months, I will ask the Governor-General to call a general election so that the Australian people can exercise their birthright and choose their prime minister.”

But then, her party seems to have a good chance of winning that election…..

On the other hand, Gordon Brown in the UK who was in very similar position to Gillard managed to stay in for a couple of years. It’s how parliamentary democracy works. Far from perfect, but the perfect system hasn’t been created yet.

“…The island state has long been a staunch ally of the West, but APC, if materialised, could potentially sharpen the tensions and conflicts – currently under control – among the regional powers.”

One of the key reason that ASEAN is “neutral” and advocates “non-interference” is to avoid big-power competition.

This is an awkward policy – best displayed by Malaysia under Mahathir – who had strong security relationship with the west (U.S., U.K., Australia & New Zealand) – even stronger that with the East (Japan, India or China) but saw no qualms about ridiculing the west.

But the point remains – this policy of limited involvement works. Hence, how should ASEAN – who relies on the west to underwrite its security – address greater interests by the U.S. & Australia in the region without being drawn into big power competition?

I’ve been following the discussions on Australian media about the new administration under Ms. Gillard.

Immigration will always be a big issue in any nation. How it is debated will be an indication of whether there is a genuine attempt to resolve the issue or simply use it for political expediency.

In the next few weeks, I await to see how Ms. Gillard addresses the problem of immigration and refugees.

I believe Australia has the resources and capability to manage the current number of immigrants & refugees ( i think its in the region of 300,000++ a year).

But I am also interested to see how Ms. Gillard will manage the mining tax and climate change/carbon emissions tax and on the international front, whether she will be as much as an “internationalist” as Rudd was.

Frankly, I thought Rudd was good for the region as he forced the region to start talking to one another seriously by bringing up the APC, never mind the fact that it was not a very good idea.